Recent Comments

My Photo

New crime blogs

Slate Magazine has launched a new law blog called Convictions (nice title), which will feature daily posts by several well-known law professors, attorneys, and journalists. As you can see from the "tag cloud" on the right-hand column, its focus thus far is upon the crossroads of the political and criminal, which overlap to an uncomfortable degree these days. Much of the recent discussion concerns the Supreme Court's pending Second Amendment case.

The blogosphere continues to expand beyond the ever-abounding (and, frankly, to me, usually tiresome) political sites (one of these days the A.C.L.U. will realize that its cause would boom if it advocated as aggressively for Second Amendment rights as it does for, say, Fifth Amendment rights.... meanwhile I promise that's the last remotely political remark I'll make in 2008).

More new blogs delve into subject areas of great interest to pure true crime junkies such as ourselves.

The cops reporters from the L.A. Daily News are blogging the crime beat at Mean Streets.

Journalism graduate student Brenna Ehrlich is blogging about Chicago crime at Watching the Detectives.

One of my favorite authors and writing buddies, Robert Waters, has posted some new content at his new blog: Getting Away With Murder. (I recently had occasion to visit the James Farm in Kearney, Missouri, and was tickled to see Robert's books prominently displayed in the gift shop.)

Women in Crime Ink launched last week with the promise of sharing the day-to-day adventures of several prominent true crime authors of the female persuasion. Author Kathryn Casey recently explained the focus of the new site in an essay posted on CrimeRant.

I'm looking forward to reading their thoughts on crime and media, particularly on the latter. Contributors include several names I already have on my bookshelves: Pat Brown, Andrea Campbell, Kathryn Casey, Tina Dirmann, Stacy Dittrich, Diane Fanning, Jenna Jackson, Vanessa Leggett, Michele McPhee, Donna Pendergast, Robin Sax, Katherine Scardino, and Donna Weaver. This one will be a must-read for me.

Jonathan Goodman, R.I.P.

The Telegraph is reporting the death of Jonathan Goodman, "Britain's leading historian of crime." His work was well known all over the English-speaking world.

He will remain forever famous in the genre for writing more than three dozen books. The most impressive: The Killing of Julia Wallace - still in print forty years after it was written.

A favorite of American fans is the book he wrote chronicling his 6,000-mile trek across North America to visit famous murder sites. He wrote of his travels in Tracks To Murder. (More on that from the publisher, Kent State University Press.)

The Telegraph has details of the author's career and lists some other famous titles.

The Casebook has posted details on the author's passing and career.

Fantastic Fiction has a complete bibliography.

Margaret Anne Barnes, 1927-2007

Margaretannebarnes_2Margaret Anne Barnes was a journalist and author, most notably of the true crime classic Murder in Coweta County, a courtroom drama concerning a brutal Georgia murder in 1948 committed by a man who thought he owned his town but did not reckon on the sheriff committed to upholding the law. The book was so extraordinarily well written that it earned her lasting fame, went into multiple editions, and is still in print, decades after it was first issued.

Ms. Barnes passed away earlier this month of emphysema. She was eighty.

Murder in Coweta County, which came out in 1976, was widely hailed in newspapers across the country as a brilliant piece of true crime reporting and was a finalist for the coveted Edgar Award for Best Fact Crime in 1977. The Chicago Sun-Times called it "one of the best crime-trial recreations ever written." Every reviewer was forced to reach for a thesaurus to describe the extraordinary quality of her book.

The book later became a TV movie starring Johnny Cash (above, with the author) and Andy Griffith.

Thank you, Margaret, for your lasting contribution to the true crime genre, which will long outlive you.

For more -

The Margaret Anne Barnes website

The Washington Post obituary

Atlanta Journal-Constitution feature story on Margaret Anne Barnes

Thanks to Robert Waters for the link.

Legends of True Crime Reporting: Abraham Lincoln

Long before he ascended to the presidency to become the greatest leader this nation has known, back when he was still a country lawyer in Illinois, Abraham Lincoln was involved as defense counsel in an extraordinary murder trial. The case affected him quite deeply. "His mind was full of it; he could think of nothing else," remarked his biographer, Ward H. Lamon. As Lincoln wrote to a friend soon after the trial ended: Lincoln_1

We have had the highest state of excitement here for a week past that our community has ever witnessed.... It would take a quire of paper to give you anything like a full account of it, and I therefore only propose a brief outline.

Soon afterward, Lincoln's short account of the trial was published in a newspaper, the Quincy (Illinois) Whig, in 1846. Of the account, biographer Lamon remarked, "he made no pause to choose his words; there is nothing constrained and nothing studied or deliberate about it, but its simplicity, perspicuity, and artless grace make it a model of English composition."

For those new to the story, I will not spoil it with commentary or any hint of the remarkable denouement. What follows is Lincoln's account, with paragraph breaks added, along with the original headline and introductory remarks by the newspaper.

Remarkable Case of Arrest for Murder

The following narrative has been handed us for publication by a member of the bar. There is no doubt of the truth of every fact stated; and the whole affair is of so extraordinary a character as to entitle it to publication, and commend it to the attention of those at present engaged in discussing reforms in criminal jurisprudence, and the abolition of capital punishment.

In the year 1841, there resided, at different points in the State of Illinois, three brothers by the name of Trailor. Their Christian names were William, Henry and Archibald. Archibald resided at Springfield, then as now the seat of Government of the State. He was a sober, retiring, and industrious man, of about thirty years of age; a carpenter by trade, and a bachelor, boarding with his partner in business–a Mr. Myers.

Henry, a year or two older, was a man of like retiring and industrious habits; had a family, and resided with it on a farm, at Clary's Grove, about twenty miles distant from Springfield in a northwesterly direction. —William, still older, and with similar habits, resided on a farm in Warren county, distant from Springfield something more than a hundred miles in the same North-westerly direction. He was a widower, with several children.

In the neighborhood of William's residence, there was, and had been for several years, a man by the name of Fisher, who was somewhat above the age of fifty; had no family, and no settled home; but who boarded and lodged a while here and a while there, with persons for whom he did little jobs of work. His habits were remarkably economical, so that an impression got about that he had accumulated a considerable amount of money.

In the latter part of May, in the year mentioned, William formed the purpose of visiting his brothers at Clary's Grove and Springfield; and Fisher, at the time having his temporary residence at his house, resolved to accompany him. They set out together in a buggy with a single horse. On Sunday evening they reached Henry's residence, and staid over night.

On Monday morning, being the first Monday of June, they started on to Springfield, Henry accompanying them on horseback. They reached town about noon, met Archibald, went with him to his boarding house, and there took up their lodgings for the time they should remain. After dinner, the three Trailers and Fisher left the boarding house in company, for the avowed purpose of spending the evening together in looking about the town.

At supper, the Trailers had all returned, but Fisher was missing, and some inquiry was made about him. After supper, the Trailers went out professedly in search of him. One by one they returned, the last coming in after late tea time, and each stating that he had been unable to discover anything of Fisher. The next day, both before and after breakfast, they went professedly in search again, and returned at noon, still unsuccessful. Dinner again being had, William and Henry expressed a determination to give up the search, and start for their homes.

This was remonstrated against by some of the boarders about the house, on the ground that Fisher was somewhere in the vicinity, and would be left without any conveyance, as he and William had come in the same buggy. The remonstrance was disregarded, and they departed for their homes respectively. Up to this time, the knowledge of Fisher's mysterious disappearance had spread very little beyond the few boarders at Myers', and excited no considerable interest. After the lapse of three or four days, Henry returned to Springfield, for the ostensible purpose of makings further search for Fisher. Procuring some of the boarders, he, together with them and Archibald, spent another day in ineffectual search, when it was again abandoned, and he returned home.

No general interest was yet excited. On the Friday, week after Fisher's disappearance, the Postmaster at Springfield received a letter from the Postmaster nearest William's residence, in Warren county, stating that William had returned home without Fisher, and was saying, rather boastfully, that Fisher was dead, and had willed him his money, and that he had got about fifteen hundred dollars by it. The letter further stated that William's story and conduct seemed strange, and desired the Postmaster at Springfield to ascertain and write what was the truth in the matter.

The Postmaster at Springfield made the letter public, and at once, excitement became universal and intense. Springfield, at that time, had a population of about 3,500, with a city organization. The Attorney General of the State resided there. A purpose was forthwith formed to ferret out the mystery, in putting which into execution, the Mayor of the city and the Attorney General took the lead. To make search for, and, if possible, find the body of the man supposed to be murdered, was resolved on as the first step. In pursuance of this, men were formed into large parties, and marched abreast, in all directions, so as to let no inch of ground in the vicinity remain unsearched. Examinations were made of cellars, wells, and pits of all descriptions, where it was thought possible the body might be concealed. All the fresh, or tolerably fresh graves in the graveyard, were pried into, and dead horses and dead dogs were disintered, where, in some instances, they had been buried by their partial masters.

This search, as has appeared, commenced on Friday. It continued until Saturday afternoon without success, when it was determined to despatch officers to arrest William and Henry, at their residences, respectively. The officers started on Sunday morning, meanwhile, the search for the body was continued, and rumors got afloat of the Trailors having passed, at different times and places, several gold pieces, which were readily supposed to have belonged to Fisher.

On Monday, the officers sent for Henry, having arrested him, arrived with him. The Mayor and Attorney Gen'l took charge of him, and set their wits to work to elicit a discovery from him. He denied, and denied, and persisted in denying. They still plied him in every conceivable way, till Wednesday, when, protesting his own innocence, he stated that his brothers, William and Archibald, had murdered Fisher; that they had killed him, without his (Henry's) knowledge at the time, and made a temporary concealment of his body; that, immediately preceding his and William's departure from Springfield for home, on Tuesday, the day after Fisher's disappearance, William and Archibald communicated the fact to him, and engaged his assistance in making a permanent concealment of the body; that, at the time he and William left professedly for home, they did not take the road directly, but, meandering their way through the streets, entered the woods at the North West of the city, two or three hundred yards to the right of where the road they should have travelled, entered them; that, penetrating the woods some few hundred yards, they halted and Archibald came a somewhat different route, on foot, and joined them; that William and Archibald then stationed him (Henry) on an old and disused road that ran near by, as a sentinel, to give warning of the approach of any intruder; that William and Archibald then removed the buggy to the edge of a dense brush thicket, about forty yards distant from his (Henry's) position, where, leaving the buggy, they entered the thicket, and in a few minutes returned with the body, and placed it in the buggy; that from his station he could and did distinctly see that the object placed in the buggy was a dead man, of the general appearance and size of Fisher; that William and Archibald then moved off with the buggy in the direction of Hickox's mill pond, and after an absence of half an hour, returned, saying they had put him in a safe place; that Archibald then left for town, and he and William found their way to the road, and made for their homes.

At this disclosure, all lingering credulity was broken down, and excitement rose to an almost inconceivable height. Up to this time the well-known character of Archibald had repelled and put down all suspicions as to him. Till then, those who were ready to swear that a murder had been committed, were almost as confident that Archibald had had no part in it. But now, he was seized and thrown into jail; and indeed, his personal security rendered it by no means objectionable to him.

And now came the search for the brush thicket, and the search of the mill pond. The thicket was found, and the buggy tracks at the point indicated. At a point within the thicket, the signs of a struggle were discovered, and a trail from thence to the buggy track was traced. In attempting to follow the track of the buggy from the thicket, it was found to proceed in the direction of the mill pond, but could not be traced all the way.

At the pond, however, it was found that a buggy had been backed down to, and partially into the water's edge. Search was now to be made in the pond; and it was made in every imaginable way. Hundreds and hundreds were engaged in raking, fishing, and draining. After much fruitless effort in this way, on Thursday morning the mill dam was cut down, and the water of the pond partially drawn off, and the same processes of search again gone through with.

About noon of this day, the officer sent for William, returned having him in custody; and a man calling himself Dr. Gilmore, came in company with them. It seems that the officer arrested William at his own house, early in the day on Tuesday, and started to Springfield with him; that after dark awhile, they reached Lewiston, in Fulton county, where they stopped for the night; that late in the night this Dr. Gilmore arrived, stating that Fisher was alive at his house, and that he had followed on to give the information, so that William might be released without further trouble; that the officer, distrusting Dr. Gilmore, refused to release William, but brought him on to Springfield, and the Dr. accompanied them.

On reaching Springfield, the Dr. re-asserted that Fisher was alive, and at his house. At this, the multitude for a time, were utterly confounded. Gilmore's story was communicated to Henry Trailor, who without faltering, reaffirmed his own story about Fisher's murder. Henry's adherence to his own story was communicated to the crowd, and at once the idea started, and became nearly, if not quite universal, that Gilmore was a confederate of the Trailors, and had invented the tale he was telling, to secure their release and escape.

Excitement was again at its zenith. About three o'clock the same evening, Myers, Archibald's partner, started with a two-horse carriage, for the purpose of ascertaining whether Fisher was alive, as stated by Gilmore, and if so, of bringing him back to Springfield with him.

On Friday a legal examination was gone into before two Justices, on the charge of murder against William and Archibald. Henry was introduced as a witness by the prosecution, and on oath re-affirmed his statements, as heretofore detailed, and at the end of which he bore a thorough and rigid cross-examination without faltering or exposure.

The prosecution also proved, by a respectable lady, that on the Monday evening of Fisher's disappearance, she saw Archibald, whom she well knew, and another man whom she did not then know, but whom she believed at the time of testifying to be William, (then present,) and still another, answering the description of Fisher, all enter the timber at the North West of town, (the point indicated by Henry,) and after one or two hours, saw William and Archibald return without Fisher.

Several other witnesses testified, that on Tuesday, at the time William and Henry professedly gave up the search for Fishers body, and started for home, they did not take the road directly, but did go into the woods, as stated by Henry. By others, also, it was proved, that since Fisher's disappearance, William and Archibald had passed rather an unusual number of gold pieces. The statements heretofore made about the thicket, the signs of a struggle, the buggy tracks, &c., were fully proven by numerous witnesses. At this the prosecution rested.

Dr. Gilmore was then introduced by the defendants. He stated that he resided in Warren county, about seven miles distant from William's residence; that on the morning of William's arrest, he was out from home, and heard of the arrest, and of its being on a charge of the murder of Fisher; that on returning to his own house, he found Fisher there; that Fisher was in very feeble health, and could give no rational account as to where he had been during his absence; that he (Gilmore) then started in pursuit of the officer, as before stated; and that he should have taken Fisher with him, only that the state of his health did not permit. Gilmore also stated that he had known Fisher for several years, and that he had understood he was subject to temporary derangement of mind, owing to an injury about his head received in early life.

There was about Dr. Gilmore so much of the air and manner of truth, that his statement prevailed in the minds of the audience and of the court, and the Trailors were discharged, although they attempted no explanation of the circumstances proven by the other witnesses.

On the next Monday, Myers arrived in Springfield, bringing him the now famed Fisher, in full life and proper person.

Thus ended this strange affair and while it is readily conceived that a writer of novels could bring a story to a more perfect climax, it may well be doubted whether a stranger affair ever really occurred. Much of the matter remains in mystery to this day. The going into the woods with Fisher, and returning without him, by the Trailers; their going into the woods at the same place the next day, after they professed to have given up the search; the signs of a struggle in the thicket, the buggy tracks at the edge of it; and the location of the thicket, and the signs about it, corresponding precisely with Henry's story, are circumstances that have never been explained. William and Archibald have both died since—William in less than a year, and Archibald in about two years after the supposed murder. Henry is still living, but never speaks of the subject.

It is not the object of the writer of this to enter into the many curious speculations that might be indulged upon the facts of this narrative; yet he can scarcely forbear a remark upon what would, almost certainly, have been the fate of William and Archibald, had Fisher not been found alive. It seems he had wandered away in mental derangement, and, had he died in this condition, and his body been found in the vicinity, it is difficult to conceive what could have saved the Trailors from the consequence of having murdered him. Or, if he had died, and his body never found, the case against them would have been quite as bad, for, although it is a principle of law that a conviction for murder shall not be had, unless the body of the deceased be discovered, it is to be remembered, that Henry testified that he saw Fisher's dead body.

Nothing need be added I suppose except to say that this case is amazingly similar to the shocking matter of the Boorn Brothers, so let those who would take lessons from these cases please do so.

For more details:

Early Days in Greenbush: The Archie Fisher Affair

The Trailor Murder Mystery

Legends of True Crime Reporting: John Voelker

The law, for all its lurching and shambling imbecilities, the law – and only the law – is what keeps our society from bursting apart at the seams, and becoming a snarling jungle. While the law is not perfect, God knows, no other system has been found for governing men except violence.

--John Voelker, Anatomy of a Murder

Here’s a bubble-bursting note for all you Truman Capote fans in the world. You’ve probably never head of John D. Voelker, but if anyone conquered the bestseller lists while “inventing” literary or fictionalized true crime in the 1950s, it wasn’t Truman Capote. It was John Voelker -- a justice on the Michigan Supreme Court.Anat

Photo: Voelker, from Michigan History

Just before he was elected to the highest court in the Great Lakes state, Voelker wrote a novel that closely tracked the facts of a real story. It was a fictional treatment of a true murder case he handled while a “backwoods barrister” in northern Michigan. He acted as defense attorney in the trial of a cocky young lieutenant accused of murdering the barkeep who raped his wife, or may have.

Justice Voelker’s account of the murder was published under his pen name, Robert Traver, in January 1958, months after his election. It immediately soared to the top of the New York Times bestseller list, was snapped up by a major book club, sold Broadway rights, and then generated even more buzz when it was revealed that the author was a state court justice. The book remained the number one book on the Times bestseller list for an astonishing sixty-six weeks – that’s sixteen months.

The reviewers gushed, as did this one from California’s Oakland Tribune:

Every possible facet of the multiform aspects that make every murder trial a duel to the death is flashed before the reader: the strategy and courtroom tactics of opposing lawyers; the deep mystery of human conduct and human emotions; the obsession with the “case” to the point of physical and nervous exhaustion, regardless of all other considerations; the chance, tantalizingly suggested, that the only possible defense, even if successful, may be more closely related to trickery than to truth.

After being so wAnatomyell reviewed (but then I am a sucker for a run-on sentence) the film rights were sold for well into the six figures and the movie was made the following year to critical and commercial acclaim as Anatomy of a Murder. It’s widely considered the best courtroom drama of all time.

Justice Voelker became wealthy overnight, and his book has remained in print ever since. Years later, the author would be quoted saying, “I still can’t believe it.”

I think some young, obscure fiction writer named Truman Capote might’ve noticed the biggest literary phenomenon of 1958-59.

Just a hunch.

In November 1959, the Clutter family was murdered in Holcomb, Kansas. According to legend, Truman Capote read an account a day or two later in the New York Times.

In Cold Blood was published in 1965 and was hailed as a “new journalism.” It’s still credited today as the book that "changed journalism forever".

How brief was Justice Voelker’s reign as master of the true crime novel!

After the phenomenal success of his novel, Voelker eschewed the limelight, served a brief stint on the Michigan high court, then soon retired to life in the far north in the Upper Peninsula, writing several books about fishing still considered classics in that genre. He died in his late eighties, suffering a heart attack while on his way to his favorite fishing hole. That’s a good ending, eh?

Legends of True Crime Reporting: Weegee

Weegee, "The New Yorker of New Yorkers," was the most famous crime tabloid "street" photographer in U.S. history; his work was the epitome of crime noir. Weegee

The real name of "Weegee" (a bastardization of Ouija, for his other-worldly ability to find fresh crime scenes) was Arthur Fellig (1899-1968), though nobody ever used (or knew) his straight name. He came penniless from Austria and made his name in the Big Apple. Through the 1940s and '50s he was the boss of freelance photography, the cameraman the New York City newspapers preferred to their own men.

As a reviewer once remarked: "[He] had that special touch, some sharp-focus insight into people, some private knowledge of the darkroom chemistry of human beings.... Weegee's single great talent is his unmatched ability to give a 'routine' news shot the savage, dramatic impact it has to the people in the picture."

Weegee is still adored today; a recent exhibition of his work in New York was featured this week in The New York Times. Unfortunately, the recent piece from the Times on Weegee was written by someone without much knowledge of or appreciation for the true crime genre.

We can leave it to the New York Times to excoriate true crime while writing an article lauding a legend of true crime reporting.

The Times article says Weegee "is credited with helping create American tabloid journalism, paving the way for The National Enquirer and TV shows like 'America’s Most Wanted.'"

Hmm. This is grotesquely inaccurate. Weegee might have been a terrific photographer, but he did NOT create "tabloid journalism." Crime reporting was very much alive and well long, long before Arthur Fellig learned how to pop a flashbulb.

Then the Times article goes on to run down so many true crime tangents that I forgot the piece was supposed to be about Weegee. From the article:

His tabloid photos have, since then, been supplanted by cable television and the Internet, which allow Americans to be part of the 24-hour media circuses that endlessly rehash the legal sagas of people like Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson.

Living as we now do in a tabloid culture, it is hard not to identify with Weegee’s ravenously curious onlookers, but it is also hard not to feel a bit wistful, and even worried, about what Weegee has wrought.

In his book “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” the cultural critic Neil Postman warned that the “age of show business” is not only degrading the culture but also undermining democracy.

While some people worry about America becoming an Orwellian dystopia, the nation as totalitarian prison, the greater threat, Mr. Postman argued, is Aldous Huxley’s, from “Brave New World,” of America becoming a mindless burlesque.

No good can come, he cautioned, “when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act.”

As the nation struggles in an Iraqi quagmire, the economy sputters, and the world turns more intently against us, the American viewing public — the direct descendants of Weegee’s inquisitive street crowds — is growing ever more fascinated by “CSI”-style criminal procedurals and celebrity babies.

If a fraction of the people who instant messaged their votes for “American Idol” had called their congressmen to demand a minimum wage increase, we would not have gone nearly a decade without one.

Phew. How do we get from the photography of a man who documented grim crime scenes to The National Enquirer, a gossip rag, and then to "American Idol" and the minimum wage? Is true crime responsible for all the evils of the world? I have to shrug at that one.

Truth be told, newspapers of today are less graphic than they were in Weegee's day. Trust me on that one -- I've seen some stunning pictures in some yellowing yellow journals that would never see print today. I'll include some examples of Weegee's photography below this post to prove the point. Now tell me the last time your local paper had shots like these.

If you find yourself anywhere near New York City any time soon, you can catch an exhibit called “Unknown Weegee” at the International Center of Photography through August 27.

Death through a lens: that was Weegee.

Weegee2 Weegee3

Weegeefeast Weegee4

Legends of True Crime Reporting: Edgar Lustgarten

Author Lustgarten, equipped with a sharp, legally trained mind and a novelist's eye and heart, is probably just the man to succeed William Roughhead and Edmund Pearson as top writer in the true-crime field.

-Time Magazine, 1955

You've never heard of him, but if your grandparents were interested in true crime, they knew his voice.

Long before Court TV and Dateline and 48 Hours and the plethora of other true crime shows on the tube now, one man dominated true crime on three continents. Edgar Lustgarten, that British attorney who hosted true crime programs for both TV and radio was, from about 1950 to the mid-‘60s, literally the face and voice of true crime.

Today this author and long-time daytime television star in the UK, USA, and Australia is forgotten by all but the most senior members of the AARP set and obsessive historic true crime fans.

Edgar Marcus Lustgarten was a barrister (that’s British for trial lawyer) whose true crime stories for CBS, CBC, BBC, ABC, and their Australian counterparts ruled all kinds of airwaves in the 1950s. His TV series included “Scales of Justice” and “Scotland Yard,” while his most famous radio show was “Advocate Extraordinary.” He was also a syndicated columnist for the London Express Service. His short pieces appeared in newspapers across the Lustgartenglobe.

In both his books and broadcasts, Lustgarten focused sometimes on the criminals, but more often on the performance of the attorneys involved in the cases he studied. He dramatized the art and science of cross-examination and explained to laymen the clever tricks employed by legendary lawyers the way some reveal the secrets of the great magicians.

He really is unique in that way, because no true crime writer today does anything similar (except maybe attorney Lawrence Schiller, who wrote Cape May Court House in 2003).

Lustgarten was born in 1907 and practiced law for a short time before he went into early television as a news anchor. His first true crime book, Verdict In Dispute, instantly catapulted him into what one reviewer called the “royal enclosure” of of legendary crime writers William Roughead, F. Tennyson Jesse, and Edmund Pearson. From the 1950s to the 1970s, he was considered “the foremost living writer in the field” (but it's noted that his rivals in the “enclosure” were all dead by then).

Lustgarten himself died in 1978 doing what he loved – he dropped dead of a heart attack while doing research at a library.

I wonder what he was reading?

Not everyone can appreciate Lustgarten. He had his critics (“relentless hyperbole” said one; “potboiler writing” said another), but for every snide reviewer was another who called him a “master reconstructionist of great trials” and one who noted his “ability to convey the essential significance of even a major and complex case in a few words.”

Summaries of Lustgarten’s TV shows have been written by a true crime fanatic even more obsessed than I am: http://www.78rpm.co.uk/tvy.htm With that last name, he was also very popular in German translation.

Lustgarten’s books, fiction and non-fiction, include these titles (and many more). The three most famous books are listed first:

  • One More Unfortunate (a/k/a A Case to Answer) (1947) – fiction - considered one of the 20 best courtroom novels of all time, or one of the top 100 crime fiction titles, anyway, or at least a “cornerstone” for the complete classic crime library.
  • Verdict In Dispute (1950)– Discusses many famous and obscure cases, including Florence Maybrick, Lizzie Borden, Steinie Morrison, and Edith Thompson.
  • The Illustrated Story of Crime (1976)– seven long chapters divided by type of crime and reviewing the most famous examples of kidnapping, sex crimes, and murders like the work of Leopold and Loeb. Largely duplicative of The Murder and the Trial (1958).
  • Blondie Iscariot (1948)
  • Game For Three Losers (1952) 
  • Prisoner at the Bar (1952)
  • The Woman in the Case: Four Famous Murder Trials (1955) – including the Alma Rattenbury and Madeline Smith cases.
  • Defender’s Triumph: Four Classic English Murder Trials (1957)
  • The Judges and the Judged (1961)
  • The Business of Murder (1968) – covers famous mass murders, France’s Landru.
  • The Chalk Pit Murder (1974)
  • A Century of Murderers (1975)
  • Turn The Light Out As You Go (1978)

http://www.Addall.com is a terrific place to hunt for Lustgarten titles. If you've read this far, you might like your grandpa's favorite crime writer.

For more on Lustgarten, see this article by Peter Underwood for the Casebook.

Legends of True Crime Reporting: Winifred Black

In the 1920s, Winifred Black was considered “the best known woman newspaper writer in America.” She began her decades-long career under the pen name Annie Laurie in the 1890s as an original “sob sister,” that derogatory term applied to female news reporters who wrote stories about the horrible conditions afflicted on the poor in the workhouses, hospitals, jails, opium dens, and slums of America. She penned her arguments for civic reform for Wm. Randolph Hearst and his San Francisco Examiner. Later, she became well known as a columnist and the author of advice for the lovelorn.

But on one occasion, she penned an extraordinary rant about the treatment of women who kill.

The copyright is now expired and your correspondent delights in bringing you the full text of the March, 1919 column by Winifred Black entitled “Only A Woman.” Winifred

A bit of background: From about the 1870s to roughly 1930, a prosecutor in the United States who put a young and/or good-looking woman on trial for murder was bound to wind up with his head in his hands. These decades were the Golden Age of the Murderess, a time in which a woman could shoot a man in front of a room full of witnesses and get away with it, if she was appealing enough to a jury. (An all-male jury, it’s important to note, since women did not have the full rights of citizenship.) The phenomenon was quite well known at the time, though it isn’t really remarked upon in any true crime collections I’m aware of (though one of these days I want to write a book about the Age of the Femmes Fatales).

Mrs. Black objected to this light treatment of murderesses.

Vehemently.

This column is not fiction; every word is true. I couldn’t figure out exactly which case Black relied upon as an example to begin the piece, but it’s not really material anyway. Enjoy!

“ONLY A WOMAN.”

By Winifred Black

A Western girl had a quarrel with her sweetheart not long ago—not such a very serious quarrel to begin with.

Just something about some actress in a motion picture play.

He said it, and she didn’t like it, and she said something else that he didn’t like, and then he made a few remarks about what he thought of her, and she gave him her full and free opinion of him, and by that time they were both half crazy.

And the woman snatched up a sharp knife and stabbed the man and killed him.

She was arrested and tried, and she was young and rather pretty and her eyes were large and soulful, and she wore a modest and becoming little frock and a discreet hat all during the trial, and whenever it was time to cry, she cried, with telling effect.

The foreman of the jury cried, himself, every time she did – and as for the little grocer’s clerk at the end of the jury box, he was almost hysterical.

The lawyers wrangled and fought, the court room was crowded with loafers, and the woman was acquitted and walked out of the court room as free as air.

I wonder what would have happened to her if she had been old and ugly?

I wonder what the verdict would have been if there had been a woman on that jury?

In Chicago, alone, twenty-five women have been acquitted on the charge of murder in the last eleven years. Some of them killed a man in the heat of passion. Some of them committed murder deliberately for revenge. And one or two of them took a human life for a chance at a little easy money, and not one of them was punished as the law directs that murder shall be punished.

A STRANGE VIEWPOINT

It’s hard to get a man to convict a woman of any serious crime.

Chivalrous, considerate, such respecters of women that they cannot believe them guilty of any sort of crime?

I’m afraid I can’t agree to this point of view.

The man who votes to acquit a woman of murder when he knows that she is a murderess, is usually the sort of man who has deep down in his heart an absolute contempt for women. He thinks of them as little, foolish, emotional, impulsive creatures, who can’t control themselves anyhow.

If they’re good, they’re good, he thinks, because some man has taken care of them and helped them to be good.

If they’re bad, they’re bad because some man has made them bad—they are too silly and too unimportant to be held to answer for their own actions.

When such a man as this votes to acquit such a woman as that, his vote should be looked upon by other women not as a compliment to the sex, but as an insult.

We don’t want to be judged as if we belonged to another race. We’re human beings first, and after that we’re women, and after that we are either wives or mothers or sisters or daughters.

I know a man who never meets a woman in whom he takes the faintest interest, without asking whose sister she is, or whose daughter. He never seems to think of a woman as a separate entity at all.

To him she is simply a piece of baggage, lugged around the world by some more or less fortunate – or more or less unfortunate – man.

Oh, yes, he’s old-fashioned. He isn’t old, but he’s old-fashioned just the same. He wouldn’t convict a woman of murder—not if she was the most cold-blooded, cruel, wicked creature in the world.

Not he. She’d be a woman to him – and that would settle it.

He would no more hold her accountable for what she thought or what she said, or what she did, than he would hold his little pet poodle accountable because it can’t learn to read and will not take the faintest interest in a game of pool.

And yet that man has been educated and taken care of and started in life by a woman.

His father was a chivalrous creature who could never resist a woman—especially a woman who didn’t belong to him—and one fine day he disappeared with an irresistible creature of absolutely melting charms – that no one in the world but himself could see–and the wife he left behind him brought up his son and his two daughters.

The daughters are both sweet girls, one of them is married, and the other soon will be. The son has been successful in business and he doesn’t feel that his mother gives him quite the proper environment at home—so he lives at the club.

“POOR, DEAR MOTHER”

She worked to buy his clothes, and she worked to buy his food, and she schemed and planned, and cried and pinched and saved to give him his chance in life. Being a man of a certain sort of intelligence, he took the chance and made the most of it.

Grateful, oh yes, sentimentally so. He speaks of her as “Poor, dear mother,” and he often seems overwhelmed with a kind of speculative wonder as to how in the world he ever amounted to anything, handicapped as he was by the lack of good, strong, masculine influence.

His father isn’t a coward and a recreant to him—he’s a man. His mother isn’t a brave, courageous, intelligent soul, struggling successfully against great odds—she’s only a woman—and that settles it once and for all.

I wonder if the foreman of the jury that let a woman go scot free after a cruel, inexcusable murder didn’t look at things in a good deal the same way.

# # #

"The Greatest Newspaper Article in History"

There is a long tradition in journalism of championing the cause of a wrongly convicted man. Within that tradition is the most famous newspaper article ever published that denounced a criminal conviction. The piece -- which had the famous headline J'ACCUSE -- was penned by novelist Emile Zola -- France's Mark Twain -- for a literary newspaper in Paris, L'Aurore. Jaccuse

Every student of journalism learns the remarkable story of what is often called a masterpiece of literary journalism and the impact that 4,000 words had on French society and the fate of a man named Alfred Dreyfus.

This article from Georgia Law Professor Donald Wilkes, Jr. is an excellent summary of the stunning story behind J'ACCUSE. The PBS Channel also devoted an excellent program to the newspaper article that "toppled a government, freed a man, and brought honor to a nation."

It is not the only interesting example of this journalistic phenomenon. Julian Ralph, the legendary New York journalist, did a similar piece, as did William F. Buckley, Jr. Though the case Buckley chose to champion is a very bad example. Very bad.

Meanwhile, I'm waiting -- waiting, I tell you -- for someone to do a scathing expose on the conviction in Toledo of Rev. Gerald Robinson. Would someone indulge me? The abiding and best traditions of journalism compel you.

Capote, a Sort of Film Review

I just saw Capote. Between all the diaper changes, it took me four hours, but I managed to see it all. It was much more sparse in its dialogue than I expected. And much more potent for it. Particularly strong is the parting between Perry Smith and his last "friend" in the world. Overall it was an excellent movie. A marketing major would call it a "thought-starter." One sees why Philip Seymour Hoffman got that bucket full of acting awards.

I like to read reviews of movies after I've seen them. Here's some I came across for Capote.

Nutshell summaries of movie reviews, with links from dozens of leading newspapers, is at:

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/capote

Particularly interesting is the review by the Miami Herald. http://ae.miami.com/entertainment/ui/miami/movie.html?id=435581&reviewId=19333

The Charlotte Observer also published a thoughtful review, though it also called Capote a movie "that's easier to respect than to connect with emotionally."

http://ae.charlotte.com/entertainment/ui/charlotte/movie.html?id=435581&reviewId=19354&startDate=10%2F28%2F2005

This -- from a journalist?? But I suppose it depends on your vantage and experiences. Has your work ever led you to find yourself sitting across a table from a murderer? Capote

Truman Capote pried off the lid of Hell for a long look at the people down there. Then he reported back to us on what he saw. Unless you've had a chance to sit down and talk to a crazy killer, maybe it is hard to relate.

I was once involved in a civil case arising out of a murder in which a teenager went crazy and killed his mother's boyfriend. I had to talk to this boy to find out what he had to say about the murder, so I called up the psychiatric prison that housed him. When I told the administrator on the phone that I wanted to visit -- oh, let's call him John Smith -- the man replied, "Senior or Junior?" -- for both father and son were housed there. While I questioned the boy, I kept wondering what on earth I was doing there, listening to this idiot try to convince me he is schizophrenic by talking about the voices in his head. I reprimanded the kid and he dropped it. But it was an agony to sit there, to be polite to him, to cajole information out of him, while trying to keep the pity and disgust at bay, all while wondering whether he would at any moment lunge across the table at me.

And I have read many true crime accounts, including reports from murder trials. What do these reporters put themselves through when they cover the worst cases -- the Jeffrey Dahmer case, the Albert Fish case, any murder case for that matter? When they sit through the presentation of bloody evidence, when they talk to the victims' families, when they confront a cruel killer? Sit in that chair for a while, then tell me how "manipulative" Capote was, how you would have handled "things." And admit that his book, his life, the film taught you something.

True Crime Bloggers

Interesting Sites and Blogs

Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 04/2005